Can you spell out the logic that equates "Poland is bad for Europe" with "Germany is bad for Europe"? Are you referring to the claim that the internationalists created a German state after WWII - a claim which I already addressed? If so, I have already explained several differences between the Polish state and the German state and I have already explained that "the internationalists created the Polish state" is not the premise for the conclusion "Poland is bad for Europe". Instead, the premise for that is Poland's long-standing pro-Jewishness. I repeat myself, yet again.

I was referring to what you were saying yourself, although you are trying to obfuscate everything now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southron Blood

The crux of my point is that Poland is bad for Europe, as evidenced by (among other things) the support for Polish statehood by anti-European elements.

If who created Polish statehood "doesn't matter", then this bad argument about who created what, who fought or didn't fight etc should be dropped -- which is exactly the thing I proposed, nothing more, nothing less. However, you did bring it up, again and again, which kinda suggests it's (according to you) some kind of justification for German invasion, destruction of Polish statehood, in despicable partnership with commies. At the same time also condemning a good share of the remaining part of eastern Europe to same gruesome fate, via the Molotov Ribbentrop pact's protocol ("partitioning of eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin).

IMHO the only thing that matters is that Poles were and are a nation state, its borders largely coinciding with their ethnic majority. Therefore it had a right to exist no less than other nation states, who created it is utterly irrelevant. Just like Germany, as a state, has a right to exist and is not a "wrong" state just because its existence is a handout from the dominant superpowers.

======

Speaking of bad : Germany is currently very bad for Europe, as a significant nexus of pro-immigration, PC, multicult, and because of sadly applying

However, I don't think it deserves the same fate as Poland in WW2 (complete destruction of the nation state and ravaging of the country by Stalinist terror; note that I am not even touching the topic of the so called "plan Ost" and ethnic cleansing of Slavs, because, personally, I am not sure it's true and not a commie fabrication) for it. No matter how bad the government and current policy of the establishment, such acts towards a whole country and its people are simply inexcusable and those who have to resort to this rhetoric are just desperately trying to throw in red herrings and whitewash the facts that

1) Yes, Hitler committed a calculated aggression against Poland. All evidence adds up to this IMHO. Everything else is diplomatic pretexts (almost 100% identical to the pretexts of Stalin's own aggressions) and propaganda.
2) It's clearly a "sin" against the creed of modern WNism that should be condemned. Just like certain acts that Germany suffered (e.g. ethnic cleansing of Prussia, the rapes and pillaging etc) should also be condemned.
3) In addition to just being a reprehensible act, it also set Germany on a course to disaster. But this point might be debatable and a matter of opinion (after all, it's also a fact that the world had many other aggressive and warmongering parties, so whether or not WW2 was truly avoidable in the long run -- who knows). I personally do believe it was a catastrophic miscalculation and a bad, bad mistake.

OK, I accept you don't present this as lump sum evidence. But then you should have pointed out the ones you find convincing.

Guess what, this is exactly what I've done: the few things I find most important were in that post, following the Wikipedia copy-paste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by APTheunissen

Please do not shift the goal posts. What I said was pretty self-explaining. And the article I posted did actually explain this in far more detail. Didn't you read it?

What article? Do you mean the huge image which is of no use to me as I do not speak German? But, even if I was able to read it -- a newspaper in NS Germany, where all press was tightly controlled... just exactly what am I supposed to read there, other than propaganda and apologism ? I think to the same effect I can post you quotes from Stalin's Pravda about the Winter War vs Finland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by APTheunissen

was what in business terms is called "conflict of interest".
And to give you a minimum example, leaving aside that the agreement was exclusively directed against Germany: If Britain would have gotten into conflict with Germany, Poland was obliged to subsequently attack Germany from the other side, thereby declaring the non-aggression pact to be invalid.

We would need to compare actual wording and clauses in the agreements and, preferably, an expert opinion from someone objective and maybe with some knowledge of international law and similar precedents. I do not trust your assessment as you do not at all sound objective to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by APTheunissen

Take this in the light that the agreement had zero value for Poland, since Britain by no means could come to their aid. For Britain it got zero value, too. This agreement had only value to the faction in Britain that wanted to get a war with Germany going.

This has absolutely no logic. Such agreements can be made by powers to discourage aggressions. Just because one of the signatories cannot immediately enter the hostilities (due to geography), does not mean that it cannot be a disincentive, especially when this party is a major power / a superpower (and this was the case with Britain pre-WW2). Just because Hitler has elected to ignore this "red line" and to play chicken vs the other powers, expecting to "call them bluff", does not mean that this pact would be worthless given a less reckless German leader. Hitler ignored it, yes, making it effectively worthless in hindsight (for Poland), but look where it had got him.

You are simply fitting the facts to a predetermined conclusion that you want very badly ... and, who knows, it may even be true, but the facts do not imply or prove it.

If Britain would have gotten into conflict with Germany, Poland was obliged to subsequently attack Germany from the other side, thereby declaring the non-aggression pact to be invalid.

I've looked at the agreement and it's immediately evident that you've distorted the facts:

Quote:

Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland-London (1939)
[...]

ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

The treaty is only in effect in case of defensive war against an aggression. So if, say, Britain decided to declare war on Germany, aggressively and on its own initiative, Poland would not be bound by the treaty to do anything.

So, if Germany was not an aggressor party against either Britain or Poland, this treaty would not have mattered ever.

I am not a treaty expert, but I do not see why this is fundamentally incompatible with having a non-aggression pact with Germany.

I read this contract as a protection measure for Poland to continue their crimes against Germans. As the murdering never stopped but most likely increased after this, it is clear that it was intended to etnical cleanse the germans out of an artificial state called 'Poland' which stole land from Germany.

As England new that the etnic cleansing would continue and Hitler at one point had to address this militarily, because Poles never stopped, no matter which peaceful acts Hitler did, they had a perfect 'reason' to start the war which they always wanted.

So the contract is a protection racket mafia style.

To put into the 'grandeur' of state affairs cannot cover that that criminal racket stinks like schit.

All right. Let's focus on the mass arrival of Polish immigrants in Germany and Britain in recent years as part of the EU plan to destroy Germany and Britain.

No, I mean invasion of sand people into Europe. About Polish immigrants, trust me, I would like to see them in Poland, working there than mass migrating to foreign countries. Not everyone of them is happy to going abroad, really. They would like to stay in Poland, but they are attracted by higher wages. Not Poles only.

I was referring to what you were saying yourself, although you are trying to obfuscate everything now.
If who created Polish statehood "doesn't matter", then this bad argument about who created what, who fought or didn't fight etc should be dropped -

Why should the argument be dropped? It is relevant that Jews and their allies have thought that Polish statehood is good for them.

I suppose I will repeat myself yet again: Jewish support for Polish statehood is evidence that Poland is bad for Europe; it is not - by itself - the way in which Poland is bad for Europe. The way in which Polish statehood is bad for Europe is Poland's traditional and long-standing pro-Jewishness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poison

- which is exactly the thing I proposed, nothing more, nothing less. However, you did bring it up, again and again, which kinda suggests it's (according to you) some kind of justification for German invasion, destruction of Polish statehood, in despicable partnership with commies.

Why can't you understand? I have not justified a lack of Polish statehood on grounds that Jews support Polish statehood. I have justified a lack of Polish statehood on grounds that Polish statehood is bad for Europe.

The so-called partnership with commies was a temporary measure. Any amateur historian would know that.

No, I mean invasion of sand people into Europe. About Polish immigrants, trust me, I would like to see them in Poland, working there than mass migrating to foreign countries. Not everyone of them is happy to going abroad, really. They would like to stay in Poland, but they are attracted by higher wages. Not Poles only.

So, we can't talk about past or present problems with the Poles? We should allow the enemies of Europe to use the Poles against the West without ever mentioning what is happening?

I said "a strong Germany". I did not say "a dismembered Germany, separated from its traditional lands in the east, occupied by the US military, and led by a chancellor who is proud of her Polish roots."

Merkel is mostly German, so your attempt to blame her actions on her quarter Polish background is just absurd. I doubt you'd be bringing up the quarter German ancestry of a hypothetical anti-White Polish politician as relevant in any way at all.

And you did not address the point I made that "a strong Germany" in the WWII era was NOT good for all Europeans, certainly not those to the east whose genocide was planned for the purpose of German lebensraum. So, again, you may say a victorious Nazi Germany is "good for Europe"; but if you were honest, you'd instead say it would have been so for Germanic Europe, or more broadly for western Europe, but not all of Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southron Blood

Why would I say that? Germany was allied with three Slavic countries. Poland is not the only Slavic country, you know.

Because the Nazi lebensraum plan included more than Poland. Though I'd find the plans highly objectionable anyway even if they only included Poland. And because the man you "admire" said as much:

"Concerning the treatment of peoples of alien races in the East we have to see to it that we acknowledge and cultivate as many individual ethnic groups as possible, that is, outside of the Poles and the Jews, also the Ukrainians, the White Russians, the Gorals [Goralen], the Lemcos [Lemken] and the Cashubos [Kaschuben]. If other small and isolated national groups can be found in other places, they should be treated the same way.

What I want to say is that we are not only most interested in not unifying the population of the East, but, on the contrary, in splitting them up into as many parts and fragments as possible.

Within a very few years--I should think about 4 to 5 years the name of the Cashubes, for instance, must be unknown, because at that time there won't be a Cashubian people any more (this also goes especially for the West Prussians). I hope that the concepts of Jews will be completely extinguished through the possibility of a large emigration of all Jews to Africa or some other colony. Within a somewhat longer period, it should also be possible to make the ethnic concepts of Ukrainians, Gorals and Lemcos disappear in our area. What has been said for those fragments of peoples is also meant on a correspondingly larger scale for the Poles.

The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice to either give away their child; they will then probably produce no more children so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Ostens] obtaining class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us, will disappear--or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there. The love toward their child, whose future and education depends on the loyalty of the parents, will be a strong weapon in dealing with them.

This population will, as a people of laborers without leaders, be at our disposal and will furnish Germany annually with migrant workers and with workers for special tasks (roads, quarries, buildings): they themselves will have more to eat and more to live on than under the Polish regime; and, though they have no culture of their own, they will, under the strict, consistent, and just leadership of the German people, be called upon to help work on its everlasting cultural tasks and its buildings and perhaps, as far as the amount of heavy work is concerned, will be the ones who make the realization of these tasks possible." - Himmler

Lech Walesa, polish prime minister, nobel peace prize laureate:
""I do not even shrink from a statement that is not going to make me popular in Germany: if the Germans destabilize Europe anew, in some way or other, then partition is no longer what will have to be resorted to, but rather that country will have to be erased from the map, pure and simple. East and West have at their disposal the advanced technology necessary to carry this verdict out."

source:Lech Walesa, Polish Prime Minister and Peace Nobel Prize laureate, as quoted from an interview published April 4, 1990 in the Dutch weekly Elsevier.

Walesa proposes annihilation of the german people. that in 1990.

Polish proverb: "Zdechly Niemiec, zdechly pies, mala to roznica jest" - "A croaked German, is a croaked dog, is just a small difference".

"Brothers, take up your scythes! Let us hurry to war!
Poland's oppression is over, we shall tarry no more.
Gather hordes about yourselves. Our enemy, the German, shall fall!
Loot and rob and burn! Let the enemies die a painful death.
He that hangs the German dogs will gain God's reward.
I, the provost, promise you shall attain Heaven for it.
Every sin will be forgiven, even well-planned murder,
If it promotes Polish freedom everywhere.
But curses on the evil one who dares speak well of Germany to us.
Poland shall and must survive. The Pope and God have promised it.
Russia and Prussia must fall. Hail the Polish banner!
So rejoice ye all: Polzka zyje, great and small!"

...Cardinal Wyszynski confirmed the fact 'that during the war there was not one single Polish priest who did not fight against the Germans with a weapon in his hand.' The war lasted only three short weeks, the German occupation lasted several years. This explains the extraordinary high number of priest-partisans who even were joined by bishops."

quote: ibid.

As you know partisans are non-combatants, they are considered criminals by the laws of war.

"To absorb all of East Prussia into Poland and to extend our western borders to the Oder and Neisse rivers, that is our goal. It is within reach, and at this moment it is the Polish people's great mission. Our war against Germany will make the world pause in amazement."

"There will be no peace in Europe until all Polish lands shall have been restored completely to Poland, until the name Prussia, being that of a people long since gone, shall have been wiped from the map of Europe, and until the Germans have moved their capital Berlin farther westwards."

On October 1923, Stanislaus Grabski, who later was to become Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, announced: "We want to base our relations on love, but there is one kind of love for one's own people and another kind for strangers. Their percentage is decidedly too high here. Posen [which had been given to Poland after the First World War] can show us one way to reduce that percentage from 14% or even 20% to 1½%. The foreign element will have to see if it would not be better off elsewhere. The Polish land is exclusively for the Poles!"

"(The Germans in Poland) are intelligent enough to realize that in the event of war no enemy on Polish soil will get away alive... The Führer is far away, but the Polish soldiers are close, and in the woods there is no shortage of branches."

"We are ready to make a pact with the devil if he will help us in the battle against Germany. Hear - against Germany, not just against Hitler. In an upcoming war, German blood will be spilled in rivers such as all of world history has never seen before."

you saw it after the war, when Poles took stole more land from German and killed the inhbitants of the german land most often under bestialic circumstances.

Heinz Splittgerber, in his short book Unkenntnis oder Infamie?, quotes a number of Polish sources which reflect the atmosphere in Poland immediately before the hostilities commenced. On August 7th, 1939 the Ilustrowany Kurjer featured an article "which described with provocative effrontery how military units were continually foraying across the border into German territory in order to destroy military installations and to take weapons and tools of the German Wehrmacht back to Poland. Most Polish diplomats and politicians understood that Poland's actions would perforce lead to war. Foreign Minister Beck... tenaciously pursued the bloodthirsty plan of plunging Europe into another great war, since it would presumably result in territorial gains for Poland."

He goes on to cite some 14 incidents where Polish soldiers aggressively crossed the border, destroying houses, shooting and killing German farmers and customs officers. One of them: "August 29th: "State Police Offices in Elbing, Köslin and Breslau, Main Customs Office in Beuthen and Gleiwitz: Polish soldiers invade Reich German territory, attack against German customs house, shots taken at German customs officials, Polish machine guns stationed on Reich German territory."

quote: ibid

n 1992 and 1993, Max Klüver, another German historian, spent five weeks in the Public Record Office in London searching through documents which, after fifty years of being hidden from public scrutiny, were now open to researchers. He writes in his book Es war nicht Hitlers Krieg: "How little the British cared about Danzig and the allegedly endangered Polish independence is also shown by the following brief prepared for Colonel Beck's visit of April 3 [1939]. The brief states: 'Danzig is an artificial structure, the maintenance of which is a bad casus belli. But it is unlikely that the Germans would accept less than a total solution of the Danzig question except for a substantial quid pro quo which could hardly be less than a guarantee of Poland's neutrality." But such a deal would be a bad bargain for England. "It would shake Polish morale, increase their vulnerability to German penetration and so defeat the policy of forming a bloc against German expansion. It should not therefore be to our interest to suggest that the Poles abandon their rights in Danzig on the ground that they are not defensible."29 Klüver concludes: "So there we have it clearly stated: in the own British interest, the matter of Danzig must not be solved and peace preserved. The British guarantee to Poland, however, had reinforced the Polish in their stubbornness and made them completely obdurate where any solution to the Danzig question was concerned."

The American Professor Dr. Burton Klein, a Jewish economist, wrote in his book Germany's Economic Preparations for War: "Germany produced butter as well as 'cannons', and much more butter and much fewer cannons than was generally assumed."31 And again: "The overall state of the German war economy ... was not that of a nation geared towards total war, but rather that of a national economy mobilized at first only for small and locally restricted wars and which only later succumbed to the pressure of military necessity after it had become an incontrovertible fact. For instance, in the fall of 1939 the German preparations for provision with steel, oil and other important raw materials were anything but adequate for an intense engagement with the Great Powers."

Jules Lukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to Paris, for instance, who on March 29th, 1939 told his foreign minister in Warsaw: "It is childishly naive and also unfair to suggest to a nation in a position like Poland, to compromise its relations with such a strong neighbour as Germany and to expose the world to the catastrophe of war, for no other reason than to pander to the wishes of Chamberlain's domestic policies. It would be even more naive to assume that the Polish government did not understand the true purpose of this manoeuver and its consequences."

Kurt Lück (op.cit.) writes on page 271: "Poles had thrown dead dogs into many of the graves of murdered ethnic Germans. Near Neustadt in West Prussia, the Poles slashed open the belly of a captured German officer, tore out his intestines and stuffed a dead dog inside. This report is reliably documented.

And a German mother grieves for her sons. She writes on October 12th, 1939: "Oh, but that our dear boys [her sons] had to die such terrible deaths. 12 people were lying in the ditch, and all of them had been cruelly beaten to death. Eyes gouged out, skulls smashed, heads split open, teeth knocked out... little Karl had a hole in his head, probably from a stabbing implement. Little Paul had the flesh torn off his arms, and all this while they were still alive. Now they rest in a mass grave of more than 40, free at last of their terror and pain. They have peace now, but I never shall..."

on January 6th, 1939, the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with the Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck in Munich to discuss the differences between the two countries. Von Ribbentrop proposed "the following solution: the return of Danzig to Germany. In return, all of Poland's economic interests in this region would be guaranteed, and most generously at that. Germany would be given access to her province of East Prussia by means of an extraterritorial highway and rail line. In return, Germany would guarantee the Corridor and the entire Polish status, in other words, a final and permanent recognition of each nation's borders." Beck replied: "For the first time I am pessimistic..." Particularly in the matter of Danzig I see 'no possibility of cooperation.'"

Merkel is mostly German, so your attempt to blame her actions on her quarter Polish background is just absurd. I doubt you'd be bringing up the quarter German ancestry of a hypothetical anti-White Polish politician as relevant in any way at all.

Merkel has expressed pride in her Polish roots, but no such pride in her German roots. Her Polish roots are therefore fair game. If Cameron's loyalties can be called into question for being proud to be something like 1/16 Jewish, then why can't Merkel's loyalties be called into question for being proud to be 1/4 Polish?

To be clear, I am not blaming Merkel's Polish roots for her actions as much as I am pointing out that Germany is governed by someone who is not fully ethnically German and who is more sympathetic to Poles than to Germans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowy Owl

And you did not address the point I made that "a strong Germany" in the WWII era was NOT good for all Europeans . . ..

I never said it was good for all Europeans, so I felt no need to address that point. I do not hold to the fantasy that a racial solution can be found that will benefit all Europeans. If there is an awakening in Europe, then some Europeans will be left in the dust of the awakened nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowy Owl

Because the Nazi lebensraum plan included more than Poland.

I should hope so. I favour German expansion to the Urals and Caucasus (complemented by the creation of a Greater Finland in the northern regions), however I disagree with Himmler's opinions about the Ukrainians. I support the idea a Ukrainian folk state. Pragmatic reasons alone dictate that an independent and nationalist Ukraine is a counter balance to Russia's ambitions in Europe.